5 ms·

Jews were a majority of Jerusalem even in 1850. Some communities have existed since roman times. Its a complicated story that doesn't start within anyone's liv

Jews were a majority of Jerusalem even in 1850. Some communities have existed since roman times. Its a complicated story that doesn't start within anyone's living memory.

busterarm 3y ago
I largely agree but the community was pretty persecuted and dispersed from the early 5th century through basically the 1200s. The biggest problem I find with the collective understanding people have of the conflict is that people largely think nothing of note happened before 1900 but the prior history determines a ton of why later decisions were made that people attribute to the start of conflict.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pasabagi 3y ago
  I kind of take the opposite position. History is complicated, always. However, the basic problem of Israel and Palestine is that Palestinians either live under military law (the West Bank) or in a big prison (Gaza). That's obviously not a democratic, dignified, or otherwise morally defensible situation. Ultimately, the security needs of Israel need to be balanced against the rights of the Palestinians, and as it stands, the Palestinians have no negotiating power, so they get nothing. If politicians around the world made it clear you cannot be 'the only democracy in the middle east' while having millions of people subject to military law, I expect the Palestinians would have enough negotiating room to force some kind of reasonable settlement.
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    Well then you really should look at how the West Bank came to fall under military law, and how the Gaza Strip became overpopulated with both its neighboring countries closing its borders. History is complicated, yes, but it is how we got into this situation and everybody's idea of a solution is based on their preferred version of history.
    - lazyasciiart 3y ago
      You cannot be “the only democracy in the Middle East” and use the excuse that the other countries are making you be authoritarian despots. That makes you just another authoritarian country with trappings of democracy for part of the population.
      - selestify 3y ago
        By that logic, the US is an authoritarian country. There’s a meaningful distinction to be made between whether your own citizens have a direct say in their governance or not, regardless of how foreigners in foreign countries may be oppressed.
        lazyasciiart 3y ago
        Are Palestinians citizens of Israel, or is it a foreign country that Israeli settlers are invading?
        dotancohen 3y ago
        > Are Palestinians citizens of Israel, or is it a foreign country Palestinians who live in the lands that Israel has ruled since 1948 are citizens of Israel. The West Bank is not a foreign country, there was never an independent state/country established there. I do not know why the Arabs did not establish an independent Arab state in the West Bank in 1948. In any case, Jordan militarily occupied the area from 1948 to 1967 and Israel militarily occupies the area since. And Israel has been trying to pass off that occupation to an entity that would establish an independent state there for almost 30 years. But no such entity existed or exists today. The PA would be the first contender, but they are incapable of actually administrating the area, and also they rejected every single offer that Israel made to pass the duty of administering the land to them. > that Israeli settlers are invading The Israeli settlers are not invading. I've repeated this a few times in this thread, so this is a copy-paste: League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renewed (for the most part) every three years or so. Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.
sillystuff 3y ago
If this is true (I don't know), a good percentage of the European settler Jews would have had to converge upon Jerusalem. In 1800, before the European Zionist settler colonialist project began, there were only 7000 Jews in all of historic Palestine. A large increase from the period ending just 20 years prior where there were only 2000 Jews in all of Palestine. You have to go back to the 4th century, and earlier, for Judaism to have a significant presence in Palestine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palesti... Note: The original European Zionist Jews called their own project settler colonialism back then, and they were opposed by Orthodox Jews, at the time.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  You might want to note that the rulers of the holy land at the time that you are referring to specifically enacted laws to encourage settling the nearly-empty holy land. Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. You'll also note that League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renews (for the most part) every three years or so.
  - sillystuff 3y ago
    You might want to read the wikipedia article linked as a citation in my original comment. The demographic numbers I cited came straight from that wikipedia article, and they do not agree with your "nearly-empty" claim.
    - dotancohen 3y ago
      Actually, the article supports my statement. Before the laws encouraging immigration with no regard to ethnicity, there were 275,000 people living in the area. After, 532,000 people.

Jews were a majority of Jerusalem even in 1850. Some communities have existed since roman times. Its a complicated story that doesn't start within anyone's living memory.

busterarm 3y ago

I largely agree but the community was pretty persecuted and dispersed from the early 5th century through basically the 1200s. The biggest problem I find with the collective understanding people have of the conflict is that people largely think nothing of note happened before 1900 but the prior history determines a ton of why later decisions were made that people attribute to the start of conflict.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pasabagi 3y ago
I kind of take the opposite position. History is complicated, always. However, the basic problem of Israel and Palestine is that Palestinians either live under military law (the West Bank) or in a big prison (Gaza). That's obviously not a democratic, dignified, or otherwise morally defensible situation. Ultimately, the security needs of Israel need to be balanced against the rights of the Palestinians, and as it stands, the Palestinians have no negotiating power, so they get nothing. If politicians around the world made it clear you cannot be 'the only democracy in the middle east' while having millions of people subject to military law, I expect the Palestinians would have enough negotiating room to force some kind of reasonable settlement.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  Well then you really should look at how the West Bank came to fall under military law, and how the Gaza Strip became overpopulated with both its neighboring countries closing its borders. History is complicated, yes, but it is how we got into this situation and everybody's idea of a solution is based on their preferred version of history.
  - lazyasciiart 3y ago
    You cannot be “the only democracy in the Middle East” and use the excuse that the other countries are making you be authoritarian despots. That makes you just another authoritarian country with trappings of democracy for part of the population.
    - selestify 3y ago
      By that logic, the US is an authoritarian country. There’s a meaningful distinction to be made between whether your own citizens have a direct say in their governance or not, regardless of how foreigners in foreign countries may be oppressed.
      - lazyasciiart 3y ago
        Are Palestinians citizens of Israel, or is it a foreign country that Israeli settlers are invading?
        dotancohen 3y ago
        > Are Palestinians citizens of Israel, or is it a foreign country Palestinians who live in the lands that Israel has ruled since 1948 are citizens of Israel. The West Bank is not a foreign country, there was never an independent state/country established there. I do not know why the Arabs did not establish an independent Arab state in the West Bank in 1948. In any case, Jordan militarily occupied the area from 1948 to 1967 and Israel militarily occupies the area since. And Israel has been trying to pass off that occupation to an entity that would establish an independent state there for almost 30 years. But no such entity existed or exists today. The PA would be the first contender, but they are incapable of actually administrating the area, and also they rejected every single offer that Israel made to pass the duty of administering the land to them. > that Israeli settlers are invading The Israeli settlers are not invading. I've repeated this a few times in this thread, so this is a copy-paste: League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renewed (for the most part) every three years or so. Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.

sillystuff 3y ago

If this is true (I don't know), a good percentage of the European settler Jews would have had to converge upon Jerusalem. In 1800, before the European Zionist settler colonialist project began, there were only 7000 Jews in all of historic Palestine. A large increase from the period ending just 20 years prior where there were only 2000 Jews in all of Palestine. You have to go back to the 4th century, and earlier, for Judaism to have a significant presence in Palestine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palesti... Note: The original European Zionist Jews called their own project settler colonialism back then, and they were opposed by Orthodox Jews, at the time.

dotancohen 3y ago
You might want to note that the rulers of the holy land at the time that you are referring to specifically enacted laws to encourage settling the nearly-empty holy land. Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. You'll also note that League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renews (for the most part) every three years or so.
- sillystuff 3y ago
  You might want to read the wikipedia article linked as a citation in my original comment. The demographic numbers I cited came straight from that wikipedia article, and they do not agree with your "nearly-empty" claim.
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    Actually, the article supports my statement. Before the laws encouraging immigration with no regard to ethnicity, there were 275,000 people living in the area. After, 532,000 people.